Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? - 6/9/2015 3:09:35 PM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
this from the article:
quote:

That’s no surprise because, according to a recent Rasmussen survey, a majority (53 percent) of Democrats believe that non-citizens, including even illegal immigrants, should be allowed to vote.

amazing...

Well, it certainly blows MJ's theories. It shows that to most democrats the only thing important is power. They have no moral imperative. To them all ethics and morals are relative. The only important thing is power.


It might not just be power, but it's certainly a demonstration of their will to rewrite the Constitution any way they can.


Well, you do know, as Al Gore and Ruth Badder Ginsberg say, the Constitution is a living breathing document to be interpreted by the times.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 301
RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? - 6/9/2015 7:09:57 PM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2340
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline




quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

Clearly, at least IMHO, Obama and Holder were pandering to African Americans. (I mean, it kind of seems obvious?)

Not unlike the Executive amnesty to illegal immigrants.



Something tells me that Holder didn't try that hard.




quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Nope, wrong yet one more time. The Bush Administration already had guilty verdicts. Holder dropped it after that.


Yes, indeed, you are wrong yet one more time!
The Bush Administration had no guilty verdicts. In FACT, no charges were ever filed by the Justice Department under Bush. On Jan 7 2009 (Obama didn't take over until Jan 20), Bush's Justice dept filed a civil suit against the man (Mr. Shabazz) carrying a nightstick, and the New Black Panther Party. (Not seeking damages, mind you, just an injunction)

They won an injunction against "King Samir Shabazz" (not making up the name) (the leader of the New Black Panthers) prohibiting him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling location until 2012. Way to go Bush Dept of Justice!

According to the Justice department, the decision NOT to prosecute was made before Obama or Holder ever took office.

Could Holder have reversed that decision? I cannot see why not? (Other than the pandering already mentioned)

(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 302
RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? - 6/9/2015 7:16:48 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline


According to the Justice department, the decision NOT to prosecute was made before Obama or Holder ever took office.

Could Holder have reversed that decision? I cannot see why not? (Other than the pandering already mentioned)


And according to people who were there the decision was made by Holder because it "wouldn't set the right tone" for them to go after blacks for voter intimidation. Can't get away with blaming this one on Bush.

It was about 90 days from the time this happened till Bush left office. It was still open to prosecute when Obama became King.


The Dems made King Shabazz a poll watcher in 2012.
This is pandering to the level of racism.

< Message edited by BamaD -- 6/9/2015 7:29:40 PM >


_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 303
RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? - 6/9/2015 7:26:56 PM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2340
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

"The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, P.L. 95-128, 91 Stat. 1147, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining."

How is it that it took over 25 years to only then be THE cause of a mortgage meltdown ? Grasping at straws.

"The Act instructs the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions."


Wiki HERE

A failure to be encouraged...is not a violation of this law.




Excellent point. However, whether encouraged, or mandated, or something in-between, the loans were flowing like a river (and increased under Bush). "Bush figured out it was bad banking scheme"? Says who? The banks were making billions wrapping these loans in bad paper. Henry Paulson (Bush's Goldman Sachs guy (form GS CEO, no less) was protecting the banks.



Yesssss. There there. It was all Bush's fault. Don't let me upset your worldview with facts.


Opps.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush-mccain-tried-to-reform-housing-finance




Did you even READ this link?

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush-mccain-tried-to-reform-housing-finance

I am cleaning up my snarfed iced tea. I suggest you read it. The only mention of CRA in it is from the guy at the end who is rebutting and debunking the idea that CRA caused the financial meltdown. (ROFL)

This attempt by McCain to "reform" Fannie and Freddie is about general mismanagement and accounting practices.

Oh... and BTW... Guess where under which this bill attempted to put Fannie and Freddie?

Henry Paulson!!!!


I know!!! I have a GREAT idea! Let's put Fannie and Freddie under the Goldman Sachs guy!!! He will "REFORM them! He will stop those bad loans from happening!

Ummmm Fox-->Hen House


Yes, I have no doubt Bush was trying to "reform" Fannie and Freddie.

(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 304
RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? - 6/9/2015 7:30:52 PM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2340
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD







quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

Clearly, at least IMHO, Obama and Holder were pandering to African Americans. (I mean, it kind of seems obvious?)

Not unlike the Executive amnesty to illegal immigrants.



Something tells me that Holder didn't try that hard.




quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Nope, wrong yet one more time. The Bush Administration already had guilty verdicts. Holder dropped it after that.


Yes, indeed, you are wrong yet one more time!
The Bush Administration had no guilty verdicts. In FACT, no charges were ever filed by the Justice Department under Bush. On Jan 7 2009 (Obama didn't take over until Jan 20), Bush's Justice dept filed a civil suit against the man (Mr. Shabazz) carrying a nightstick, and the New Black Panther Party. (Not seeking damages, mind you, just an injunction)

They won an injunction against "King Samir Shabazz" (not making up the name) (the leader of the New Black Panthers) prohibiting him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling location until 2012. Way to go Bush Dept of Justice!

According to the Justice department, the decision NOT to prosecute was made before Obama or Holder ever took office.

Could Holder have reversed that decision? I cannot see why not? (Other than the pandering already mentioned)


quote:

BamaD
And according to people who were there the decision was made by Holder because it "wouldn't set the right tone" for them to go after blacks for voter intimidation. Can't get away with blaming this one on Bush.

It was about 90 days from the time this happened till Bush left office. It was still open to prosecute when Obama became King.



The Assistant AG was THERE and he says the decision was made before Obama took office. In any case, Holder could have prosecuted and didn't.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 305
RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? - 6/9/2015 7:37:28 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD







quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

Clearly, at least IMHO, Obama and Holder were pandering to African Americans. (I mean, it kind of seems obvious?)

Not unlike the Executive amnesty to illegal immigrants.



Something tells me that Holder didn't try that hard.




quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Nope, wrong yet one more time. The Bush Administration already had guilty verdicts. Holder dropped it after that.


Yes, indeed, you are wrong yet one more time!
The Bush Administration had no guilty verdicts. In FACT, no charges were ever filed by the Justice Department under Bush. On Jan 7 2009 (Obama didn't take over until Jan 20), Bush's Justice dept filed a civil suit against the man (Mr. Shabazz) carrying a nightstick, and the New Black Panther Party. (Not seeking damages, mind you, just an injunction)

They won an injunction against "King Samir Shabazz" (not making up the name) (the leader of the New Black Panthers) prohibiting him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling location until 2012. Way to go Bush Dept of Justice!

According to the Justice department, the decision NOT to prosecute was made before Obama or Holder ever took office.

Could Holder have reversed that decision? I cannot see why not? (Other than the pandering already mentioned)


quote:

BamaD
And according to people who were there the decision was made by Holder because it "wouldn't set the right tone" for them to go after blacks for voter intimidation. Can't get away with blaming this one on Bush.

It was about 90 days from the time this happened till Bush left office. It was still open to prosecute when Obama became King.



The Assistant AG was THERE and he says the decision was made before Obama took office. In any case, Holder could have prosecuted and didn't.

And others who were there say otherwise.
Considering they made him a poll watcher I would have to believe that they didn't have any problem with blacks acting like Bull Conner.
You know as well as I do that had Bush pushed for prosecution it would have been dismissed as racist sour grapes, also note I blamed Holder, not Obama, that would not be a decision made by the President.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 306
RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? - 6/9/2015 7:46:52 PM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2340
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD







quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

Clearly, at least IMHO, Obama and Holder were pandering to African Americans. (I mean, it kind of seems obvious?)

Not unlike the Executive amnesty to illegal immigrants.



Something tells me that Holder didn't try that hard.




quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Nope, wrong yet one more time. The Bush Administration already had guilty verdicts. Holder dropped it after that.


Yes, indeed, you are wrong yet one more time!
The Bush Administration had no guilty verdicts. In FACT, no charges were ever filed by the Justice Department under Bush. On Jan 7 2009 (Obama didn't take over until Jan 20), Bush's Justice dept filed a civil suit against the man (Mr. Shabazz) carrying a nightstick, and the New Black Panther Party. (Not seeking damages, mind you, just an injunction)

They won an injunction against "King Samir Shabazz" (not making up the name) (the leader of the New Black Panthers) prohibiting him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling location until 2012. Way to go Bush Dept of Justice!

According to the Justice department, the decision NOT to prosecute was made before Obama or Holder ever took office.

Could Holder have reversed that decision? I cannot see why not? (Other than the pandering already mentioned)


quote:

BamaD
And according to people who were there the decision was made by Holder because it "wouldn't set the right tone" for them to go after blacks for voter intimidation. Can't get away with blaming this one on Bush.

It was about 90 days from the time this happened till Bush left office. It was still open to prosecute when Obama became King.



The Assistant AG was THERE and he says the decision was made before Obama took office. In any case, Holder could have prosecuted and didn't.

And others who were there say otherwise.
Considering they made him a poll watcher I would have to believe that they didn't have any problem with blacks acting like Bull Conner.
You know as well as I do that had Bush pushed for prosecution it would have been dismissed as racist sour grapes, also note I blamed Holder, not Obama, that would not be a decision made by the President.



BamaD, I would say we are BOTH correct.

1) The decision was clearly made under the Bush Justice Dept, not to prosecute. How do we know? They didn't prosecute.
2) The decision was clearly made under the Obama Justice Dept, not to prosecute. How do we know? They didn't prosecute.


I'll split this one with you. And, yes I do know that if Bush pushed for prosecution, it would have been dismissed as racist sour grapes (at least by the media)

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 307
RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? - 6/9/2015 8:12:30 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD







quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

Clearly, at least IMHO, Obama and Holder were pandering to African Americans. (I mean, it kind of seems obvious?)

Not unlike the Executive amnesty to illegal immigrants.



Something tells me that Holder didn't try that hard.




quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Nope, wrong yet one more time. The Bush Administration already had guilty verdicts. Holder dropped it after that.


Yes, indeed, you are wrong yet one more time!
The Bush Administration had no guilty verdicts. In FACT, no charges were ever filed by the Justice Department under Bush. On Jan 7 2009 (Obama didn't take over until Jan 20), Bush's Justice dept filed a civil suit against the man (Mr. Shabazz) carrying a nightstick, and the New Black Panther Party. (Not seeking damages, mind you, just an injunction)

They won an injunction against "King Samir Shabazz" (not making up the name) (the leader of the New Black Panthers) prohibiting him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling location until 2012. Way to go Bush Dept of Justice!

According to the Justice department, the decision NOT to prosecute was made before Obama or Holder ever took office.

Could Holder have reversed that decision? I cannot see why not? (Other than the pandering already mentioned)


quote:

BamaD
And according to people who were there the decision was made by Holder because it "wouldn't set the right tone" for them to go after blacks for voter intimidation. Can't get away with blaming this one on Bush.

It was about 90 days from the time this happened till Bush left office. It was still open to prosecute when Obama became King.



The Assistant AG was THERE and he says the decision was made before Obama took office. In any case, Holder could have prosecuted and didn't.

And others who were there say otherwise.
Considering they made him a poll watcher I would have to believe that they didn't have any problem with blacks acting like Bull Conner.
You know as well as I do that had Bush pushed for prosecution it would have been dismissed as racist sour grapes, also note I blamed Holder, not Obama, that would not be a decision made by the President.



BamaD, I would say we are BOTH correct.

1) The decision was clearly made under the Bush Justice Dept, not to prosecute. How do we know? They didn't prosecute.
2) The decision was clearly made under the Obama Justice Dept, not to prosecute. How do we know? They didn't prosecute.


I'll split this one with you. And, yes I do know that if Bush pushed for prosecution, it would have been dismissed as racist sour grapes (at least by the media)

Not only that but a large portion of their time and energy was taken up in the transfer.
The fact remains that this is a clear cut case of voter intimidation ala Bull Conner, that it was done to help Dems, and that the "mastermind" was reworded by being made a poll watcher 4 years later.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 308
RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? - 6/10/2015 9:57:00 AM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01





quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

Clearly, at least IMHO, Obama and Holder were pandering to African Americans. (I mean, it kind of seems obvious?)

Not unlike the Executive amnesty to illegal immigrants.



Something tells me that Holder didn't try that hard.




quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Nope, wrong yet one more time. The Bush Administration already had guilty verdicts. Holder dropped it after that.


quote:

Yes, indeed, you are wrong yet one more time!
The Bush Administration had no guilty verdicts. In FACT, no charges were ever filed by the Justice Department under Bush. On Jan 7 2009 (Obama didn't take over until Jan 20), Bush's Justice dept filed a civil suit against the man (Mr. Shabazz) carrying a nightstick, and the New Black Panther Party. (Not seeking damages, mind you, just an injunction)

They won an injunction against "King Samir Shabazz" (not making up the name) (the leader of the New Black Panthers) prohibiting him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling location until 2012. Way to go Bush Dept of Justice!

According to the Justice department, the decision NOT to prosecute was made before Obama or Holder ever took office.

Could Holder have reversed that decision? I cannot see why not? (Other than the pandering already mentioned)


Once again an idiot.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case



quote:

The Department of Justice later narrowed the charges against Minister King Shabazz and dismissed the charges against the New Black Panther Party and Jerry Jackson. The decision to dismiss the charges has led to accusations that the Department of Justice under the Obama administration is biased against white victims and unwilling to prosecute minorities for civil rights violations. These charges have been most notably made by J. Christian Adams, who in May 2010 resigned his post in the Department of Justice in protest over the Obama administration's perceived mishandling of the case, and by his former supervisor Christopher Coates.



quote:

The Department of Justice became aware of the incident on Election Day and started an inquiry. Under the Bush administration, a criminal investigation into the incident was started, but later dropped.[10] In January 2009, less than two weeks before the Bush administration left office, the civil rights division of the Department of Justice filed a civil suit under the voting rights act against four defendants, namely, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Jerry Jackson, NBPP chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, and the NBPP itself. The lawsuit accused them of using uniforms, racial insults and a weapon to intimidate voters and those who were there to assist them.[2] The case remained open when the Obama administration took office a few weeks later.



quote:

In April 2009 Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer who was serving as a poll watcher at the polling station where the incident occurred, submitted an affidavit at the Department of Justice's request supporting the lawsuit, stating that he considered it to have been the most severe instance of voter intimidation he had ever encountered.[2][5] When none of the defendants who were charged appeared in court to answer the charges, the career attorneys pursuing the lawsuit assumed that they would win it by default. However the move to pursue a default judgment was overruled by two of their line superiors, Loretta King, who was acting Assistant Attorney General, and Steve Rosenbaum, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General.[3]


The Justice Dept had a default victory. All Obama had to do was file a paper with the court.

< Message edited by HunterCA -- 6/10/2015 9:59:00 AM >

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 309
RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? - 6/10/2015 7:27:38 PM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2340
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


The Justice Dept had a default victory. All Obama had to do was file a paper with the court.



Victory??? In a civil suit seeking an injunction? GASP!!! Eric Holder could have won an injunction for the other New Black Panther members to be prohibited from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a polling place in Philadelphia! But instead, let it go! What injustice!

I am sure the New Black Panthers are sure happy they can be 99 feet from a polling place in Philadelphia, while their leader, Mr Shabazz has to be 100 feet away! They sure got away with something there!


(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 310
RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? - 6/10/2015 7:37:01 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


The Justice Dept had a default victory. All Obama had to do was file a paper with the court.



Victory??? In a civil suit seeking an injunction? GASP!!! Eric Holder could have won an injunction for the other New Black Panther members to be prohibited from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a polling place in Philadelphia! But instead, let it go! What injustice!

I am sure the New Black Panthers are sure happy they can be 99 feet from a polling place in Philadelphia, while their leader, Mr Shabazz has to be 100 feet away! They sure got away with something there!



In 2012 Mr Shabazz was a poll watcher, sanctioned by the state to do his dirty work inside the polling place.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 311
RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? - 6/10/2015 8:20:43 PM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2340
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


The Justice Dept had a default victory. All Obama had to do was file a paper with the court.



Victory??? In a civil suit seeking an injunction? GASP!!! Eric Holder could have won an injunction for the other New Black Panther members to be prohibited from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a polling place in Philadelphia! But instead, let it go! What injustice!

I am sure the New Black Panthers are sure happy they can be 99 feet from a polling place in Philadelphia, while their leader, Mr Shabazz has to be 100 feet away! They sure got away with something there!



In 2012 Mr Shabazz was a poll watcher, sanctioned by the state to do his dirty work inside the polling place.



Yes, and that was AFTER the Justice dept (Both Mr. Mukasey AND Mr. Holder) VICTORY over Mr. Shabazz!!!

Just think we could have had more victories like that!

And remember, as long as Mr. Shabazz in his "poll watching" didn't display a weapon, he did not violate the injunction. Of course, if he wasn't in Philadelphia, he could "poll watch" WHILE displaying a weapon all he wants!

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 312
RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? - 6/10/2015 8:42:03 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


The Justice Dept had a default victory. All Obama had to do was file a paper with the court.



Victory??? In a civil suit seeking an injunction? GASP!!! Eric Holder could have won an injunction for the other New Black Panther members to be prohibited from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a polling place in Philadelphia! But instead, let it go! What injustice!

I am sure the New Black Panthers are sure happy they can be 99 feet from a polling place in Philadelphia, while their leader, Mr Shabazz has to be 100 feet away! They sure got away with something there!



In 2012 Mr Shabazz was a poll watcher, sanctioned by the state to do his dirty work inside the polling place.



Yes, and that was AFTER the Justice dept (Both Mr. Mukasey AND Mr. Holder) VICTORY over Mr. Shabazz!!!

Just think we could have had more victories like that!

And remember, as long as Mr. Shabazz in his "poll watching" didn't display a weapon, he did not violate the injunction. Of course, if he wasn't in Philadelphia, he could "poll watch" WHILE displaying a weapon all he wants!

Don't you have a major problem with him being given that position? Had he been driving off Dems it would have been trash wall to wall by every network, and rightly so.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 313
RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? - 6/10/2015 9:28:43 PM   
MasterJaguar01


Posts: 2340
Joined: 12/2/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


The Justice Dept had a default victory. All Obama had to do was file a paper with the court.



Victory??? In a civil suit seeking an injunction? GASP!!! Eric Holder could have won an injunction for the other New Black Panther members to be prohibited from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a polling place in Philadelphia! But instead, let it go! What injustice!

I am sure the New Black Panthers are sure happy they can be 99 feet from a polling place in Philadelphia, while their leader, Mr Shabazz has to be 100 feet away! They sure got away with something there!



In 2012 Mr Shabazz was a poll watcher, sanctioned by the state to do his dirty work inside the polling place.



Yes, and that was AFTER the Justice dept (Both Mr. Mukasey AND Mr. Holder) VICTORY over Mr. Shabazz!!!

Just think we could have had more victories like that!

And remember, as long as Mr. Shabazz in his "poll watching" didn't display a weapon, he did not violate the injunction. Of course, if he wasn't in Philadelphia, he could "poll watch" WHILE displaying a weapon all he wants!

Don't you have a major problem with him being given that position? Had he been driving off Dems it would have been trash wall to wall by every network, and rightly so.



ok ok ok...

Yes, I have a major problem with him being given that position!

Looks like North Philly Dems (I assume mostly an African American area?) wanted him there. I saw the pic of him there in 2012 at the VERY same site. (NOTE: Without the nightstick. No violation of the injunction.) I also read (on a Fox News site, so I can't vouch for its authenticity) that he was arrested in New York for carrying unlicensed gun. I also read that he goes on anti-semitic rants (not unlike Farrakhan)


Your point is 100% valid. There was no media outrage... But on the other hand, his "New Black Panthers" are a tiny bunch, and the only person really doing anything of note is him. Not much impact. Yes, it is rather disgusting of African Americans (of any party) to invite this guy into a polling place. The whole idea of a "poll watcher" is potentially racist IMO.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 314
RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? - 6/11/2015 11:34:39 AM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA


The Justice Dept had a default victory. All Obama had to do was file a paper with the court.



Victory??? In a civil suit seeking an injunction? GASP!!! Eric Holder could have won an injunction for the other New Black Panther members to be prohibited from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a polling place in Philadelphia! But instead, let it go! What injustice!

I am sure the New Black Panthers are sure happy they can be 99 feet from a polling place in Philadelphia, while their leader, Mr Shabazz has to be 100 feet away! They sure got away with something there!



Lol, you can try and depreciate it, but what I said all along was correct.

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)
Profile   Post #: 315
RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? - 6/11/2015 1:18:53 PM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline
http://thehill.com/opinion/ab-stoddard/244621-ab-stoddard-silence-isnt-golden


(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 316
RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? - 6/11/2015 1:41:07 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Dont know why it has a new date, the article is older prior to April 12th. And still pretty much nothing worthwhile, same as last time.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 317
RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? - 6/11/2015 1:42:09 PM   
HunterCA


Posts: 2343
Joined: 6/21/2007
Status: offline
Okay, we have the answer to the OP's question from the left.

http://thehill.com/opinion/brent-budowsky/244623-brent-budowsky-hillarys-4-aces-in-the-hole

Basically, she has a vagina and half the voters will too. She can't talk about her or Obabma's policies so she'll talk about bogus issues like income inequity, and she's married to Bill.

Mind you, this is touted by the left.

(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 318
RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? - 6/11/2015 2:02:30 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Okay, we have the answer to the OP's question from the left.

http://thehill.com/opinion/brent-budowsky/244623-brent-budowsky-hillarys-4-aces-in-the-hole

Basically, she has a vagina and half the voters will too. She can't talk about her or Obabma's policies so she'll talk about bogus issues like income inequity, and she's married to Bill.

Mind you, this is touted by the left.


Watch her shamelessly pander to feminists, and blacks, and gays and Hispanics etc... "Poor helpless creatures"

Give away the store on account of her and her partys racism and bigotry

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to HunterCA)
Profile   Post #: 319
RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? - 6/11/2015 2:25:47 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
The rightwing shiteaters have given away the store already, notice the debt promulgated by the rightwing shiteaters.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 320
Page:   <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109